Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vasp-mcp

vasp-mcp

by NabKh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_vasp_lint_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show all VASP input checks with severity and source wiki page to identify potential mistakes before job submission.

Instructions

All input checks with their severity and the VASP wiki page each is based on.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_vasp_lint_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of what comes back — each rule with a severity and a wiki citation — which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing (no verb) slightly weakens front-loading of what the tool actually does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it says what entries contain yet not how many rules exist, how they are ordered, or why an agent would consult this list rather than act on check_vasp_inputs output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter-related misinformation is present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this is a catalog of VASP input checks, including what each entry carries (severity and source wiki page). The 'list' verb comes from the tool name rather than the description, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like check_vasp_inputs, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. An agent could infer this is a reference listing that explains the rules check_vasp_inputs applies, but the description never states that relationship or any alternative, so usage must be guessed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools